To: Natufian
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett.
That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
19 posted on
11/30/2011 5:41:15 AM PST by
Triple
(Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
To: Triple
My thoughts exactly.
See my previous comment on this thread.
22 posted on
11/30/2011 5:49:38 AM PST by
simplesimon
(You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own "facts"...........)
To: Triple
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett.
They considered it. They even used it. See #20.
However, CRS lies while doing so.
24 posted on
11/30/2011 5:53:08 AM PST by
philman_36
(Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
To: Triple
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett. That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
No, it just indicates poor reading on your part. The CRS author spends a full page on Minor v. Happersett, specifically on pp. 28-29 (pp. 31-32 of the PDF).
To: Triple; Natufian; LucyT; SatinDoll; bgill; null and void; little jeremiah; Spaulding
Interesting that the CRS did not seem to consider Minor v. Happersett. That is a Strange omission that indicates a bias, or poor research.
Fear.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson